# Remote viewing is real--and the truth is being seen by the media... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 17, 2004, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916 "2004-01-17T11:04:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![TonyJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9c0ed/32.png) [@TonyJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonyJ)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/121 "2004-01-22T08:22:38Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Actually, I don’t know “lots” about pyschic phenomena. Can you find me claiming that in any thread? From your OP: > [@Aeschines](#): > > …remote viewing is real, it is leading to genuine effects… This shows that you claim to know about a psychic phenomenon, namely remote viewing – that it is real and “is leading to genuine effects”. (QED, though I am quite willing to explain further if needed.) On a side note, I’ve never heard so many logical fallacies coming from one person! Is this some kind of exercise? I wouldn’t mind playing along; I once wrote a quite good fallacy-laden paper for a critical thinking class several years back, and I found it incredibly entertaining to purposefully argue falsely. Perhaps this is **Aeschines** purpose here! ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 8:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/122 "2004-01-22T08:33:46Z")
**Aeschines** , I was about to post that it’s time for everyone to leave this thread since you’ve shown to have no grasp of science (for example, the applied science/theory distinction that you seem to find so important exists in your head only and is no argument against us, you don’t see what information exchange has to do with energy consumption/production (try looking up Maxwell’s Demon) and somewhere you’ve picked up the idea that skeptics _believe_ something in the face of the facts, which is patently untrue) but then you actually did post a cite! So let’s look at that. Now, unfortunately I’ve been unable to open any of the links on that site ([www.boundary.org/experiments.htm](http://www.boundary.org/experiments.htm)), but I have reason to believe that it’s technical difficulties on my side rather than on [boundary.org](http://boundary.org). Could someone (I know it’s not going to be you, **Aeschines** , since that’s not your purpose here) copy-paste the text of those pdf documents and make that available somehow? I’d really like to read what **Aeschines** has dug up for us. After writing but not yet posting the above, I decided to look into what else there was on the same site. And as it turns out, the tests described in those pdf files I couldn’t open, were online games. In one test, you have five face-down cards in front of you. You click one, and then the computer randomly selects one card to be the “correct” card. This is supposed to be a precognition test since the correct card isn’t selected until you’ve already clicked… or so they say. _How_ easy is it to load a test like this one? How can we control it? We can’t. I also find it telling that they require a lot of questions to be filled out when you register, such as if you meditate, if you trust faith, follow hunches, believe in remote viewing and the like. Basically, the registering process can easily make sure that the ones who believe in “psychic” phenomena do well at the tests, whereas the people like me do badly. And, tellingly, I got scores of 20% and 17% on the above test, 20% being the number expected by chance. I’m willing to bet that those pdf files make the point that believers are better at this kind of thing, while “skeptos” do badly. Do better, **Aeschines**. ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/123 "2004-01-22T09:08:48Z")
> [@Fish](#): > > The arguments are all along the lines that a for-profit television show does not equate to an airtight-controlled scientific study. > [@Aeschines](#): > > No shit, Sherlock. Ah, you admit it. You claimed your attacks on skeptics are based on _observation._ You claimed that skeptics assume fraud. I have used _observation_ and a few simple quotations based on what skeptics actually said to prove that you are wrong. Your _observations_ about the skeptics here are flawed. I have proved my point, and yet you cannot look the evidence in the face. This shows how rigidly you adhere to observation—eg, not at all. Your central argument about the nature of skeptics has been reduced to dust. You are not winning anything, **Aeschines.** > [@Aeschines](#): > > You need to write with more precision. I’m not blind; rather, I know how not to waste time. The fact that you have created this thread with absolutely no point whatsoever proves that argument is false as well. You have claimed a Masters of Science but have evaded anything resembling scientific method. > [@Fish](#): > > Nobody’s ignoring your evidence here, buddy. We are giving it the weight that it is due. > [@Aeschines](#): > > What evidence? You appear to have abandoned _Super Special_ because it is obvious you cannot demonstrate independently that the program was conducted with rigid scientific controls. You admit as much—you admit that you can only _assert_ that it was authentic but you cannot _verify_ it. But such was your evidence, sir, and we gave it the weight it was due. If you create a test that everyone can cheat on, both the geniuses and the fools will pass. We have pointed out that the _Super Special_ television show is just such a test. A real psychic could pass that test; so could a fool. Therefore the show has little weight as evidence. Another argument of yours becomes as nothing. I would give your links the weight they deserve as well, but this thread has become increasingly pointless. > [@Fish](#): > > You have no problem claiming that these studies exist, of course, but I don’t expect you to cough up. > [@Aeschines](#): > > Yeah, they exist. Google 'em and study up. I googled and googled all day long and I couldn’t find _any_ cites for Remote Viewing. Therefore, there is no evidence for remote viewing. Sorry. 🙂 And I’m taking a page from your book: if you ask me why my googling technique failed to come up with an answer, I am prepared to become “offended” so I don’t have to provide you with a suitable answer. This is a technique that tinfoil hatters find very useful, I find: become “offended” or “insulted” so the question can be sidestepped. > [@Aeschines](#): > > If such a TV show can be made in this way (either as truth or as a polished hoax with many people involved), what does that tell you? The people here assume “fraud”–well, where does that assumption lead you? I find that the boring, dull, uninteresting thing about the Skeptos is that they come to an interesting logical conclusion but fail to do anything with the information so gained. What does it tell me? [That](http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/Q/htmlQ/quizshowsca/quizshowsca.htm) [it’s](http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20011213.shtml) [been](http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/05/13/ny.times.investigation/) [done](http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s221617.htm) [before.](http://www2.gol.com/users/kilburn/dirty.htm) In ten minutes of googling for results on television, fraud, scandals, and news, I found incidents that demonstrate either laxity or outright corruption in the news media and television broadcasters both in America and Japan. I find it _very easy_ to believe that fraud _might_ be perpetrated, and following the logic of “fraud” doesn’t lead me to a wacky logical Wonderland where cows drink milk and the Earth is flat and Apollo Ohno is a woman and mosquitoes are messengers from the 12th dimension and tinfoil hats protect you from alien rays. Television and news fraud happens _a lot_ in both countries. If you are unable to bring yourself to believe that human beings, gasp, sometimes lie for their own profits, then I cannot help you. You should learn a lesson from the moon hoaxers: it’s not just what you believe, it’s what you _don’t_ believe. You appear to believe that fraud on a massive scale is impossible. I suggest you look into it. > [@Aeschines](#): > > So it is with the Skeptos. Fine, elegant hoaxes are being perpetrated all around the globe. And so? What does that tell you? > > Nada. Uh, fraud. Forgotten. Wash, rinse, repeat! You sum up own your posts so eloquently. Hoaxes are being perpetrated all over the world and it tells you, Aeschines, nothing. You simply _believe_ that an entertainment program is telling the truth because you don’t want to face the alternative. I am facing _both_ alternatives and I have insufficient evidence to decide between them. > [@Aeschines](#): > > **1. Was the show broadcast in Japanese? Yes or no.** > > It was on Japanese TV, so take a wild fucking guess. Am I to assume that you consider wild fucking guesses to be scientific evidence? It would certainly explain a great deal about Remote Viewing, that’s for sure. > [@Aeschines](#): > > **4. What evidence do you have that the show was not rigged to produce favorable results?** > > None, and I already said so. Then the television show is, again, not scientific evidence. You really must think these things through before you admit to them. > [@Fish](#): > > That’s it for me. Until I see some links to some controlled studies in here, I’m just going to assume that you’re asserting your belief muscles, Aeschines. Good luck with the whole science thing. > [@Aeschines](#): > > No personal insults in GD, unless you’re wearing your genuine J.W.R. Skeptical Protector. Then it’s… play ball! You’re quick to seek the protection of the Board rules when it comes to personal attacks on you, I see, even when personal attacks don’t exist. And yet you have no qualms whatsoever to attack any and all skeptics, with a broad and insulting brush, loaded with the paint of condescension: but because you’re attacking _everyone_ it’s not personal? Shall I direct my personal scorn at the “tinfoil hatters” who use your arguments? It amounts to the same thing. I refrain from attacking your _beliefs_ because this is Great Debates, and belief is permitted here. If you are here to assert your belief, or to “witness,” then feel free and I won’t dispute you. Since you claim not to be presenting a debate, I can hardly see what other point you have; I am going to treat this as a non-debate declaration of your own beliefs in remote viewing. You certainly aren’t treating this seriously as a debate of the phenomenon. I agree with **Priceguy.** Aeschines appears to have no point, and insists he is not engaging in debate over the phenomenon, and yet he claims to be “winning.” I’m not going to waste my time here. Maybe he’s remote-viewing the personal attacks, 'cos I don’t see them. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/124 "2004-01-22T09:26:58Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > **Aeschines** _How_ easy is it to load a test like this one? How can we control it? We can’t. I also find it telling that they require a lot of questions to be filled out when you register, such as if you meditate, if you trust faith, follow hunches, believe in remote viewing and the like. Basically, the registering process can easily make sure that the ones who believe in “psychic” phenomena do well at the tests, whereas the people like me do badly. And, tellingly, I got scores of 20% and 17% on the above test, 20% being the number expected by chance. I’m willing to bet that those pdf files make the point that believers are better at this kind of thing, while “skeptos” do badly. > > Do better, **Aeschines**. You win the bet **Priceguy**! I read the first paper. Overall, it deals with results that even they acknowledge only reach chance levels (!), and sometimes a little bit worse! Yes, they claim a small effect can be seen among believers, but it looks to me that they get those results through meta-analysis. That is controversial in other quarters too. However, the paper mostly self congratulates in the fact that this is a new way to investigate, by getting testing data through the Internet (it looked to me that that was the main reason for the submission!). They said the technique is good for other researches, like good old psychology for example. However, it results in very poor evidence for RV. The other papers are not relevant to RV, but I gave up after seeing all depending on Meta-analysis to “prove” their points. Although focused on medicine, a good summary of problems with meta-analysis can be found here: [http://www.tufts.edu/~gdallal/meta.htm](http://www.tufts.edu/~gdallal/meta.htm) ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/125 "2004-01-22T10:53:43Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I have a Master of Science degree, my friend. Well, then, you’re precisely as qualified as [Dr. Science!](http://www.drscience.com) > [@](#): > > How does Dr. Science know the secrets of the universe? He has a Masters Degree … in Science! ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/126 "2004-01-22T11:25:03Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > This is one juicy canard that the skeptos never sicken of. _I’ll_ say it again: “extraordinary” is an emotional qualifier; it’s an opinion. It has no basis in deciding what level of proof is needed for any claim. Wrong again. The qualifier “extraordinary” does not refer to some vague, emotional content; it refers to the quality and extent of the evidence. There’s no need to provide extensive, high quality evidence to demonstrate something commonplace or ordinary. But one would need very extensive, very high quality evidence (extraordinary evidence) commensurate with the apparent scientific improbability (deviation from accepted scientific theories) of what you’re trying to demonstrate to convince an informed audience of the reality of, say, remote viewing. In other words, the standard of evidence needed to persuade us that you submitted your posts from say, Evanston, Ill, is far lower and easier to provide than the standard of evidence needed to convince us you posted them from an extraterrestrial spacecraft in the Proxima Centauri system. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Dangling a set of car keys would persuade us that you owned a car, but dangling something you claimed were flying saucer keys would amount to far less than the extraordinarily high-quality evidence you would need to persuade us you owned an extraterrestrial spacecraft. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/127 "2004-01-22T11:38:39Z")
> [@TonyJ](#): > > From your OP: > This shows that you claim to know about a psychic phenomenon, namely remote viewing – that it is real and “is leading to genuine effects”. Whoa, nice sleuthing Keanu, but where did I say I knew “lots”? > [@](#): > > On a side note, I’ve never heard so many logical fallacies coming from one person! Is this some kind of exercise? I wouldn’t mind playing along; I once wrote a quite good fallacy-laden paper for a critical thinking class several years back, and I found it incredibly entertaining to purposefully argue falsely. Perhaps this is **Aeschines** purpose here! If you have the guts and/or balls, I welcome you find even ONE logical fallacy in this thread by me, with the appropriate category attached (e.g., argument from ignorance). ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/128 "2004-01-22T11:55:11Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > I was about to post that it’s time for everyone to leave this thread since you’ve shown to have no grasp of science… Certainly, leave the field of battle. I advise retreat, indeed, based on your current situation. But keep in mind that he who holds the field is considered the victor. > [@](#): > > …For example, the applied science/theory distinction that you seem to find so important exists in your head only and is no argument against us. The point was raised in response to your tenuous assertion, that, were it not for skepticism, we would have no modern technology. > [@](#): > > …You don’t see what information exchange has to do with energy consumption/production (try looking up Maxwell’s Demon). Umm, it’s an interesting topic, one worthy of discussion, but your assertion that psi is impossible, as it contradicts the laws of thermodynamics, requires a bit more elaboration on your part. For example, how many jules of energy are required for me to see something? I have no idea, nor do you. > [@](#): > > …And somewhere you’ve picked up the idea that skeptics _believe_ something in the face of the facts, which is patently untrue) but then you actually did post a cite! So let’s look at that. Yes, I did pick this up somewhere: to wit, planet Earth, where people known as “skeptics” deny well-proved phenomena. > [@](#): > > Basically, the registering process can easily make sure that the ones who believe in “psychic” phenomena do well at the tests, whereas the people like me do badly. And, tellingly, I got scores of 20% and 17% on the above test, 20% being the number expected by chance. I’m willing to bet that those pdf files make the point that believers are better at this kind of thing, while “skeptos” do badly. I am most glad to see that you have adopted my terminology, a more appropriate moniker for your “team.” As for the on-line “experiment,” it’s just for fun. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/129 "2004-01-22T12:13:05Z")
> [@Fish](#): > > Ah, you admit it. You claimed your attacks on skeptics are based on _observation._ You claimed that skeptics assume fraud. I have used _observation_ and a few simple quotations based on what skeptics actually said to prove that you are wrong. Your _observations_ about the skeptics here are flawed. I have proved my point, and yet you cannot look the evidence in the face. This shows how rigidly you adhere to observation—eg, not at all. Your central argument about the nature of skeptics has been reduced to dust. You are not winning anything, **Aeschines.** I’ll be damned if I can sort out what you’re trying to say here. But as for “winning,” indeed, there is no prize for fool demolition, but I do it as a public service; the reward is strictly spiritual. > [@](#): > > The fact that you have created this thread with absolutely no point whatsoever proves that argument is false as well. You have claimed a Masters of Science but have evaded anything resembling scientific method. “That argument”–what argument? I’ve made several. Mostly I have made philosophical arguments, ones so meaty that few are done yet chewing. You don’t seem to have begun yet. > [@](#): > > You appear to have abandoned _Super Special_ because it is obvious you cannot demonstrate independently that the program was conducted with rigid scientific controls. Nice observation. I’d have to turn PI and commit serious resources to get that job done. I’m content, however, to recognize that either big lies are being told, or big phenomena being proved. The intent of the thread, if you haven’t grasped it yet, was to reflect on how the Skepto world view is losing credence by the day. > [@](#): > > You admit as much—you admit that you can only _assert_ that it was authentic but you cannot _verify_ it. But such was your evidence, sir, and we gave it the weight it was due. Good evidence for the point I was trying to make; namely, that your worldview is less and less accepted by the public around the world. You’ve lost your foothold. It’s gone, ne’er to return. > [@](#): > > If you create a test that everyone can cheat on, both the geniuses and the fools will pass. We have pointed out that the _Super Special_ television show is just such a test. Oh dear. No one has proved any such thing. You’d have to be behind the scenes of the show. > [@](#): > > A real psychic could pass that test; so could a fool. Therefore the show has little weight as evidence. Another argument of yours becomes as nothing. Argument for what? You’re incoherent. > [@](#): > > I googled and googled all day long and I couldn’t find _any_ cites for Remote Viewing. Therefore, there is no evidence for remote viewing. Sorry. 🙂 You gave it your all, kid. Time to throw in the towel. > [@](#): > > And I’m taking a page from your book: if you ask me why my googling technique failed to come up with an answer, I am prepared to become “offended” so I don’t have to provide you with a suitable answer. This is a technique that tinfoil hatters find very useful, I find: become “offended” or “insulted” so the question can be sidestepped. You don’t offend me; you bore me. Go away. Let the best of your team step up to the plate. You’ve struck out, son. > [@](#): > > You should learn a lesson from the moon hoaxers: it’s not just what you believe, it’s what you _don’t_ believe. You appear to believe that fraud on a massive scale is impossible. I suggest you look into it. Oh my. The Moon Hoax is an example of idiots doubting what is flat-out fact. It’s evidence for _my_ position, not yours. And yes, I believe that fraud on such a massive scale as faking a moon landing IS impossible. > [@](#): > > You sum up own your posts so eloquently. Hoaxes are being perpetrated all over the world and it tells you, Aeschines, nothing. You simply _believe_ that an entertainment program is telling the truth because you don’t want to face the alternative. I am facing _both_ alternatives and I have insufficient evidence to decide between them. You need to up the sophistication of your thought process. Connect the dots a little. > [@](#): > > You’re quick to seek the protection of the Board rules when it comes to personal attacks on you, I see, even when personal attacks don’t exist. And yet you have no qualms whatsoever to attack any and all skeptics, with a broad and insulting brush, loaded with the paint of condescension: but because you’re attacking _everyone_ it’s not personal? Shall I direct my personal scorn at the “tinfoil hatters” who use your arguments? It amounts to the same thing. Personal attacks and mockery are BANNED in GD, got it? Please play by those rules or get your sorry, slack ass off the sandlot. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/130 "2004-01-22T12:17:56Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > …Personal attacks and mockery are BANNED in GD, got it? Please play by those rules or get your sorry, slack ass off the sandlot. Listen, Junior Mod with the martyr complex, _what is your point_? You should not come to GD, post ‘Holy poop, remote viewing is real!’, and expect people to take your good word for it. If you have some other point to make, then do so in a clear and concise manner. Provide cites for your assertions. If you do not, then this thread is useless. My vision of the future (OMG! I remotely viewed the future!) is that you will continue your psycho ramblings, and will not backup your claims with so much as one shred of legitimate proof. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/131 "2004-01-22T12:23:15Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > “That argument”–what argument? I’ve made several. Mostly I have made philosophical arguments, ones so meaty that few are done yet chewing. You don’t seem to have begun yet. I suggest you state once again what your argument is. Are you claiming that there is now sufficient evidence that Remote Viewing is real? If not, what exactly is your point? Which of your statements are suggestions for further discussions/consideration, and which statemens do you claim are based on undeniable proof? ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/132 "2004-01-22T12:28:10Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > The qualifier “extraordinary” does not refer to some vague, emotional content; it refers to the quality and extent of the evidence. “Extraordinary” is an opinion-word, dammit. Not quantifiable. Subject to dispute. Get a clue and a grip. > [@](#): > > There’s no need to provide extensive, high quality evidence to demonstrate something commonplace or ordinary. “Commonplace” and “ordinary” are, again, just matters of opinion. Many religious people would consider answered prayers, etc., to be “ordinary.” You gonna go with that? > [@](#): > > But one would need very extensive, very high quality evidence (extraordinary evidence) commensurate with the apparent scientific improbability (deviation from accepted scientific theories) of what you’re trying to demonstrate to convince an informed audience of the reality of, say, remote viewing. Rich cake, this. What good are “accepted scientific theories” if they’re dead wrong? So, you’re saying that the more people believe something to be true, the more evidence is required to prove that they’re wrong? So, if a bunch of creationists get together who believe 100% that evolution is wrong, you need better evidence for evolution that you would were the group in question “skeptics”? Sounds like epistomological relativism to me. Sounds like junk. > [@](#): > > In other words, the standard of evidence needed to persuade us that you submitted your posts from say, Evanston, Ill, is far lower and easier to provide than the standard of evidence needed to convince us you posted them from an extraterrestrial spacecraft in the Proxima Centauri system. This has nothing to do with scientific theory. This is a matter of proving a one-off fact. It’s more like a legal matter. If I say that I was with my friends last night, you believe me. But if it’s a murder case and there’s more at stake, you demand more proof. I call my friends as witnesses; they back up my story. It’s up to you whether to believe at that point or not. Many people have said such and such a paranormal event happened. People back them up at witnesses. Experiments are done in labs; cameras roll. Still you say, No, I don’t believe it. Your perogative. But what has this to do with science? Fuck all. It’s just your opinion, nothing more. > [@](#): > > Dangling a set of car keys would persuade us that you owned a car, but dangling something you claimed were flying saucer keys would amount to far less than the extraordinarily high-quality evidence you would need to persuade us you owned an extraterrestrial spacecraft. Irrelevant, stupid example. On the other hand, time after time Uri Gellar has bent spoons in the hands of people _without even touching them_. There are witnesses to this aplenty. There are movies of what he did under controlled conditions. At some point your statement that it’s all BS is just a matter of your own pigheadedness and nothing more. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/133 "2004-01-22T12:30:30Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > My vision of the future (OMG! I remotely viewed the future!) is that you will continue your psycho ramblings, and will not backup your claims with so much as one shred of legitimate proof. More pejorative, more insults. I think it’s time for you to do the Billy Madison, if only to work on those social skills. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/134 "2004-01-22T12:31:48Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > I suggest you state once again what your argument is. Are you claiming that there is now sufficient evidence that Remote Viewing is real? If not, what exactly is your point? Which of your statements are suggestions for further discussions/consideration, and which statemens do you claim are based on undeniable proof? Thesis: the game is up, skeptos. The media is now turning a positive eye and ear to psychic pheonomena, which will be demonstrated again and again and again–not because of hoaxing, but because they are real. Your worldview is flushed, officially. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/135 "2004-01-22T12:32:25Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > What good are “accepted scientific theories” if they’re dead wrong? So, you’re saying that the more people believe something to be true, the more evidence is required to prove that they’re wrong? Why do you think the “accepted scientific theories” are accepted in the first place? Because it is consistent with an overwhelming number of observations and experimental results. If you have one data which “proves” that the theory is wrong, it’s one data against centuries of accumulated data. _Of course_ it requires more evidence to prove wrong such established theories. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/136 "2004-01-22T12:39:18Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Thesis: the game is up, skeptos. The media is now turning a positive eye and ear to psychic pheonomena, which will be demonstrated again and again and again–not because of hoaxing, but because they are real. > > Your worldview is flushed, officially. Your saying so doesn’t make it true; seems like there are a number of assertions here: [ol][li]The media is becoming increasingly interested in reporting paranormal phenomena[/li][li]Demonstrations of apparently paranormal phenomena are being conducted.[/li][li]Paranormal phenomena are real.[/ol][/li] I don’t think anyone is arguing with you on the first two, they’re just questioning whether point 3 is backed by any reliable evidence and if not, whether it is acceptable to conclude point 3 solely on the basis of points 1 and 2. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/137 "2004-01-22T13:23:46Z")
**Aeschines** , through the title of this thread you have made a claim of fact. You have done _nothing_ since then to support this claim, and most(if not all) of your posts since then have consisted of nothing but snide responses to those who have asked for evidence and cites. If you have evidence or cites for the claim you have made, please post them now. If all you can do is make unsubstanciated claims, MPSIMS is the place for you. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/138 "2004-01-22T14:21:44Z")
\*\* Aeschines\*\*: > [@](#): > > get your sorry, slack ass off the sandlot [Moderator Hat ON] Aeschines, derogatory references to the state of someone’s ass are not proper in GD. Also, asking you questions is not a personal insult, and the Mods will determine what is and is not an insult, not you. Everybody, back it down a notch. [Moderator Hat OFF] ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/139 "2004-01-22T14:23:22Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > **Aeschines** , through the title of this thread you have made a claim of fact. You have done _nothing_ since then to support this claim, and most(if not all) of your posts since then have consisted of nothing but snide responses to those who have asked for evidence and cites. If you have evidence or cites for the claim you have made, please post them now. If all you can do is make unsubstanciated claims, MPSIMS is the place for you. But, **Czarcasm**! He’s done more than _that!_ He’s also born false witness against his neighbors, through accusing everybody that criticizes his posts of insulting him, followed up by accusations of Board Rules violations thereby. Surely you aren’t going to overlook such great achievements? :rolleyes: Sarcasm alert! For **Aeschines** & the humor-impared. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/140 "2004-01-22T15:01:53Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Certainly, leave the field of battle. I advise retreat, indeed, based on your current situation. But keep in mind that he who holds the field is considered the victor. **"It’s just a flesh wound"** Am I the only one who thought of this? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916.md?page=8)